UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4930
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RONALD DAVID BUTLER,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:08-cr-00553-TLW-1)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 24, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald David Butler pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five hundred
grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846 (2006). The district court
sentenced Butler to 192 months’ imprisonment. Butler’s counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that in his view, there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. Counsel, however, asks this court to review
the validity of Butler’s guilty plea and the reasonableness of
his sentence. Butler has not filed a pro se supplemental brief
despite receiving notice that he may do so, and the Government
declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no error, we
affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea,
we review the adequacy of a guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). A review of Butler’s Rule 11
hearing reveals that the district court complied with Rule 11’s
requirements. Butler’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently entered, with full knowledge of the consequences
attendant to his guilty plea. We therefore find that no plain
error occurred and affirm Butler’s conviction.
2
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 50-51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d
330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In addition, this court presumes a
sentence within a properly determined advisory Guidelines range
is substantively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 341 (2007); United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th Cir. 2007).
We conclude that Butler’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
properly calculated Butler’s Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors. See United States v. Pauley 511 F.3d
468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based
its sentence on its “individualized assessment” of the facts of
the case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir.
2009). Furthermore, Butler has not rebutted the presumption
that his within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable.
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Butler, in writing, of the right to
3
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Butler requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Butler. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4